Tuesday, September 28, 2010

I like Pat Kessler, but that’s “beside the point” as his Reality Check on our recent marriage ad is misleading.

Reality Check says, "The ad accurately describes which candidates for governor support gay marriage. But it's beside the point. The governor has no role. When a constitutional amendment is approved by the legislature, it bypasses the governor and goes directly to voters."

Well, that's true, but misleading. (And it sounds a lot like a recent talking point used by same-sex marriage supporters.) In fact, the governor play a huge "role" as he/she has the power to veto any bill that would legalize same-sex marriage - and there are five bills to legalize same-sex marriage waiting to be passed in the 2011 session.

DFL Sen. John Marty is publicly boasting that same-sex marriage could be legalized next year.Marty says this because the DFL already controls both houses and all they need is a governor that supports same-sex marriage – like Dayton or Horner – to get it passed.

The reality is, don't be fooled. The next governor will play a huge role in the marriage debate and only Tom Emmer will protect marriage and your right to vote.

Homosexual activists are beating the drum for homosexual doctrination of school children in Anoka Hennepin School District in response to the tragic suicide of Justin Aaberg, a teenager who had embraced homosexuality.

It's been argued that Justin committed suicide, because he was harassed for being homosexual. I talked to parents of students in the district and the word among students is that Justin was distraught over his male lover having an affair. Whatever the exact reason for Justin's suicide it's an enormous tragedy that shouldn't be manipulated for ideological purposes which is what's being done now.

Certainly harassment of a student or any student for homosexuality or any other reason is unacceptable and needs to be swiftly dealt with. Even if the reason a student's harassment is his or her homosexuality that does not justify "anti-homophobia" indoctrination of the entire student body and faculty. (This indoctrination seeks to promote acceptance of homosexuality as a normal form of sexual expression.) Yet that's what is being demanded.

The mother of the student notes that " some groups are more vulnerable, noting "there's literature that says (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) persons are a high-risk group."

I would agree that youth who embrace homosexuality are at greater risk, because they've embraced an unhealthy sexual identity and lifestyle. These alternative sexual identifications or lifestyles deny the reality that we are created male and female. To live or try to live in conflict with how we are made will invariably cause problems, e.g. emotional, psychological and social. Notwithstanding gay activist assertions to the contrary, people aren't gay, lesbian, transgender, etc. by God's design or nature. We are male and female with sexual expression designed for a lifelong union between a man and a woman. Denying or fighting against this reality is the reason alternative forms of sexual expression, whether homosexual or heterosexual, will put people at greater risk. To assert otherwise is to deny reality and involves "kicking against the goad" to use a biblical analogy.

The manipulation of this tragedy is reminiscent of the Matthew Shepard tragedy. Shepard a homosexual was brutally murdered by two men who robbed him. It was asserted that Shepard was murdered, because he was homosexual. It turns out that wasn't the case. No matter. Shepard's tragic death served an important ideological purpose for homosexual activists.

I'll of course be accused of being unloving, hateful, etc. But is the loving thing to encourage and promote unhealthy and harmful behaviors and practices? If we love and care for people won't we encourage them to do the right thing and discourage the wrong? Warn them the course they're headed down is dangerous? What does this say about people who actually encourage people to engage in harmful practices?

Pastors call on other Protestant Pastors to stand with them and the Catholic Church to protect marriage.

MINNEAPOLIS – Pastors from across the state of Minnesota praised recent efforts by the Minnesota Catholic Bishops, led by Archbishop John Nienstedt of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, to protect marriage.“We stand in support of the recent efforts to protect and strengthen marriage by the Catholic Archdiocese,” said Pastor Jim Anderson, The Harbor, in Hastings.“We agree that marriage is between one man and one woman and that the church and it’s leaders should lead the way in protecting and strengthening marriage.We call on other pastors and all Christians leaders to join us in protecting and strengthening marriage.”

“Marriage is under great attack.That attack continues in the State of Minnesota where impending bills before the Minnesota legislature and one lawsuit would legalize same-sex marriage.We are deeply concerned,” said Pastor Steve Goold of New Hope Church in Plymouth.

“As pastors of Minnesota churches and citizens of this great state, we find it necessary to voice this concern to you the citizens of Minnesota,” said Goold.“We cannot state strongly enough the importance and value of marriage for the social good and the potentially dangerous ramifications of a social experiment such as legalizing same-sex marriage.”

“We do not number ourselves among those desiring to deny anyone in society their basic civil rights,” said Pastor Jim Anderson, The Harbor, Hastings, MN.“The push by gay marriage advocates for participation in health care and end-of-life decisions and other financial and legal actions can be creatively and easily addressed and is simply not a factor here.We support and defend civil rights for same-sex persons.But sooner or later a human issue arises and a line gets crossed where an agenda begins to push on the rest of society in ways that are destructive of the common good.Redefining marriage and opening the door to other types of family arrangements is one of those lines.It introduces a serious tear in the universal fabric.”

Friday, September 24, 2010

Here's the latest from the CDC on who's contacting HIV. Men who engage in sodomy account for the lion's share of cases. They are 2% of the US population yet account for 57% of new HIV cases. That's almost thirty times their number. And from 2005 to 2008, the HIV infection rate has increased 17% among men who engage in this behavior.

At the end of their statement, the CDC says it "supports a range of efforts to reduce" HIV infection. Obviously, what they've been promoting hasn't worked. I have a sneaking suspicion that a change of behavior - abstinence - isn't among their recommendations. The consequence? Sadly, more sickness and disease.

National Gay Men's HIV/AIDS Awareness Day is observed each year on September 27 to focus on the disproportionate effects of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic on gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2007, the estimated HIV diagnosis rate among MSM was 692 per 100,000, which was 44 to 86 times the rate for other men and 40 to 77 times the rate for women (1).

Although MSM represent approximately 2% of the U.S. population (1), in 2006 they accounted for 57% of all new HIV infections (2). From 2005 to 2008, estimated diagnoses of HIV infection increased approximately 17% among MSM in 37 states (3). In 2008, black MSM had the highest estimated number of diagnoses of HIV infection, followed by white and Hispanic MSM (3). In recent years, new HIV diagnoses have increased significantly among young black MSM (4).

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

TV ad campaign points out that Dayton and Horner oppose allowing the people to vote on a marriage amendment

MINNEAPOLIS – Tom Prichard, President of the Minnesota Family Council, today drew attention to a statewide TV ad campaign it’s sponsoring with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

“It is important that the citizens of Minnesota know that both Mark Dayton and Tom Horner support imposing gay ‘marriage’ on Minnesotans without a vote of the people. Only Tom Emmer has publicly supported traditional marriage and the right of the people to vote on this important issue. That’s what this ad communicates,” said Tom Prichard, President of the Minnesota Family Council.

“The recently released marriage poll shows a substantial majority of Minnesotans believe the people not the courts or state legislature should decide the issue. It also revealed that a candidate’s support for traditional marriage and the people’s right to vote on the marriage issue is a game changer in close elections for candidates who support protecting marriage,” added Prichard.

A survey of 695 likely Minnesota voters recently released by NOM and the Minnesota Family Council showed the dramatic impact the issue of marriage could have this election cycle. At the end of August Tom Emmer trailed Mark Dayton by a margin of 42-33 percent (Horner had the support of 12% of voters), but when voters learn that Emmer supports traditional marriage and is the only candidate to also support the right of Minnesotans to vote on marriage, he led Dayton by a margin of 42-36 (Horner dropped to 9%). The survey was conducted by pollster Dr. Gary Lawrence of Lawrence Research, who has conducted more marriage surveys and focus groups that any other pollster in America.

Here's another TV ad on gay "marriage" and the governor's race. It points out once again that Mark Dayton and Tom Horner want to impose gay "marriage" on Minnesotans without giving them a say. The polls say a strong majority want the right to vote.

Will marriage be a game changer in the fall election for governor? I certain hope so.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

I came across an interesting piece by Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises on the Marx attraction to a progressive income tax and confiscatory inheritance tax. This is taken from the Kairos Journal.

Austrian-trained economist Ludwig von Mises came to America on the eve of World War II. He was a prolific writer on behalf of capitalism. Among his books are Theory of Money and Credit, Socialism, and Human Action. In the following passage from Planning for Freedom, he disparages inheritance taxes and the progressive income tax, whereby those who make more pay not only pay more, but pay a higher percentage of their income. He shows these two forms of taxation, that many take for granted in a free society, are right out of the Communist bible and a good way to weaken the economy.

"Looking backward on the evolution of income tax rates from the beginning of the Federal income tax in 1913 until the present day, one can hardly expect that the tax will not one day absorb 100% of all surplus above the income of the average voter. It is this that Marx and Engels had in mind when in the Communist Manifesto they recommended “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

Another of the suggestions of the Communist Manifesto was “abolition of all right of inheritance.” Now, neither in Great Britain nor in this country have the laws gone up to this point. But again, looking backward upon the past history of the estate taxes, we have to realize that they more andmore have approached the goal set by Marx. Estate taxes of the height they have already attained for the upper brackets are no longer to be qualified as taxes. They are measures of expropriation.

The philosophy underlying the system of progressive taxation is that the income and the wealth of the well-to-do classes can be freely tapped. What the advocates of these tax rates fail to realize is that the greater part of the incomes taxed away would not have been consumed but savedand invested. In fact, this fiscal policy does not only prevent the further accumulation of new capital. It brings about capital decumulation. This is certainly today the state of affairs in Great Britain."

Monday, September 20, 2010

A news report said the poverty rate nationally has risen to 14.3%, the highest rate in 16 years.

What's the answer? More government programs? Hardly. The key ingredients in my estimation are reducing government size and regulations so the private sector and economy can grow and strengthening marriage.

The reason for the first is poverty is reduced long term by wealth creation and that means getting the economy growing again. High taxes and government spending are ultimately a drag on economic growth. The government by and large is a consumer and doesn't produce much stuff.

Second, strengthen marriages because people are much less likely to be living in poverty if they are married. Kids are five to six times more likely to be raised in poverty if they live in a single parent household. Here the government can protect the definition of marriage and commitments people make when they get married. In other words reform our no fault divorce laws. Beyond that churches and private groups to get involved. And the media and entertainment industries need to affirm and support marriage not trash or ignore it as they so often do.

The Heritage Foundation points out how the government through its policies has often times weakened and harmed marriage. They note that out of wedlock births are a major reason for child poverty and marriage breakdown is linked to welfare spending.

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, the U.S. has spent $15.9 trillion on means-tested welfare. And today, spending on welfare programs is 13 times greater than it was in 1964. By undermining intact families and eroding the work ethic in low-income communities, the welfare state has encouraged dependency and intergenerational poverty.

If the United States is serious about reducing poverty and reining in federal welfare spending, it must strengthen marriage. We can do this in several ways, including reducing anti-marriage penalties in current welfare programs and providing factual information about the benefits of marriage throughout low-income communities.

Friday, September 17, 2010

I looked more closely at the recent Survey/USA poll which shows Dayton's lead over Emmer down to 38% to 36% with Horner now at 18%.

What's interesting is young people 18 to 34 years of age are going for Emmer by a margin of 46% to 30% for Dayton and 9% for Horner.

Maybe young people are becoming more conservative. Or they realize they're the ones left holding the bag to pay for all the social, retirement programs which will likely not be around when they get older. Whatever it's very interesting.

A closer look also reveals Horner is pulling equally from Dayton and Emmer at this stage of the game. I suspect that will change as Horner's liberal policies on taxes, abortion and marriage are revealed to the public.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

A new Survey/USA poll shows Mark Dayton ahead of Tom Emmer by only two points. Dayton is up only 38% to 36% for Emmer. Horner is at 18%. It looks to me like much of the change is from Dayton to Horner. The irony is that Horner, a former Republican, could well be pulling more support from Dayton than Emmer.

When I saw that Arne Carlson had endorsed Horner (Certainly not surprising.) I thought that only gives Horner more public credibility but doesn't pull votes from Emmer. Any moderate, liberal Republican support left Emmer a long time ago. So Carlson's endorsement may well help Emmer in the long run.

As for Horner, he won't gain more conservative support because he's pro-abortion, pro-homosexual "marriage" and he's a big government candidate, calling for significant tax increases.

This is where the marriage issue could be the game changer. Just as the poll we released on Monday points out, people upset about both Dayton and Horner wanting to impose homosexual marriage on the state without a say could well vote for Emmer the only candidate who supports letting the people vote. A few points here and there could well be the difference in what's shaping up to be a tight race for governor.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

We held a press conference releasing a poll on marriage, marriage amendment and effect on governor's race. Very interesting results. 54% of likely voters want support marriage between one man and one woman, 60% say the people should decide the issue not the state legislature or the courts, and 36% said they would switch candidates support based on the candidate's position on marriage. Of that 36%, about 7 in 10 would switch to a pro-marriage candidate.

When people were surveyed on the gubernatorial candidates in late August, Dayton had 42%, Emmer 33% and Horner 12%. When people found out where they stood on marriage and allowing the people to vote, it swung the election to Emmer with 42%, Dayton 36% and Horner 9%.

Certainly, the economy and jobs are the paramount issue in people's minds with unemployment over 9.5% nationwide. But marriage is a critical issue. It's both a private and public institution which people feel strongly about, especially those who believe it's a God-ordained institution between a man and a woman. I would argue the economy and marriage are intimately related. In fact, the economy ultimately stands on the well-being our families and marriage. When marriage break up so will our economy. Fact is children raised by a single parent are 5 to 6 times more likely to live in poverty.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Vin Weber came a good overview at the Humphrey Institute of the public's mood compared to past elections in 1980, 1982, and 1994 and what can be expected this November.

He sees big Republican gains this November. Likely Republican takeover of the US House and close in the US Senate. And he anticipates continuing conflict after the election because Obama sees himself as a "transformational" figure who will push his vision for bigger government whomever is in Congress.

When Clinton faced a similar disaster in his first midterm, he famously moved to the center and “triangulated” with the two parties in the House, announcing that the era of big government was over. But Weber recalled an interesting moment from 2008 when Obama got in some trouble for stating that Reagan had been a more “transformational” figure than Clinton. Obama sees himself as similarly transformational, and he will not triangulate, Weber predicted.

“This president has a different view of himself and his place in history,” Weber said. Obama will push for more change, and the kind of change he favors will continue to expand government and cost money.

But the Republican Party is also in the midst of a “transformation,” into a less pragmatic, more ideological, harder right, more libertarian party.

Obama will face a House dominated by “people who were elected by voters who are ready to throw out anyone who votes for any kind of spending or expansion of government,” Weber said. Every spending bill that comes along will cause those members to wonder whether this might be the one that will cost them their seats the way votes for TARP and the Obama stimulus measures appear to have ended the careers of long-serving members of Congress. Once you get into that mindset, Weber said, the safest, easiest vote on any spending bill is going to be “no.”

Weber views this election as more ideological than some of the other ground shaking revolutions we've had in the past few decades

Comparing the coming midterm earthquake to its most famous recent predecessors in 1982 (Ronald Reagan’s first midterm) and 1994 (Bill Clinton’s), Weber said this is a more ideological election based on that severe backlash against the Dems misreading.

The country has “moved further to the right in a shorter period than has happened in a long time,” Weber said, which is best reflected in poll results that show widespread public hostility to government spending and public debt and a near collapse of public confidence in the government’s ability to solve problems.

He also touched on the governor's race where there are some cross winds blowing. The national mood versus democrat's passionate desire to gain back the governorship for the first time since Rudy Perpich sat in the governor's chair in 1990.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Public universities like the University of Minnesota strike me as hugh bureaucracies impervious to efficient and wise use of resources. With faculty tenure, taxpayer subsidies, and a semi-autonomous political status, they seem to demonstrate all the tendencies of government bureaucracies -- extravagant use of resources and unresponsive to market forces and consumers. The same can be said of some of the larger private higher education institutions which are sitting on massive endowments.

Well, that may change. We've already experienced a financial bubble in the housing market. Our economic woes may do the same thing with higher education according to some observers.

Michael Barone has picked up on a column by Glenn Reynolds to suggest the that skyrocketing prices for a college education maybe soon changing. Barone writes:

Imagine that you have a product whose price tag for decades rises faster than inflation. But people keep buying it because they're told that it will make them wealthier in the long run. Then suddenly they find it doesn't. Prices fall sharply, bankruptcies ensue, great institutions disappear.

Sound like the housing market? Yes, but it also sounds like what Glenn Reynolds, creator of instapundit.com, writing in The Examiner, has called "the higher education bubble."

Government-subsidized loans have injected money into higher education, as they did into housing, causing prices to balloon. But at some point people figure out they're not getting their money's worth, and the bubble bursts.

He points out that the quality of our college graduates has declined as have the standards of higher education in general.

"Is our students learning?" George W. Bush once asked, and the evidence for colleges points to no. The National Center for Education Statistics found that most college graduates are below proficiency in verbal and quantitative literacy. University of California scholars Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks report that students these days study an average of 14 hours a week, down from 24 hours in 1961.

The American Council of Alumni and Trustees concluded, after a survey of 714 colleges and universities, "by and large, higher education has abandoned a coherent content-rich general education curriculum."

Of course, this isn't solely the fault of colleges; the product they're receiving from our public education system is declining as well. Yet what they are doing isn't helping.

They aren't taught the basics of literature, history or science. ACTA reports that most schools don't require a foreign language, hardly any require economics, American history and government "are badly neglected" and schools "have much to do" on math and science.

ACTA's whatwilltheylearn.com Web site provides the grisly details for each school, together with the amount of tuition. Students and parents can see if they will get their money's worth.

The public is starting to see the problems with universities.

Transparency could also undermine the numerous dropout factories, public and private, described and listed by the liberal Washington Monthly. More than 90 percent of students there never graduate, but most end up with student loan debt.

Increasing transparency is hitting higher education at the same time it is getting squeezed financially. Universities have seen their endowments plunge as the stock market fell and they got stuck with illiquid investments. State governments have raised tuition at public schools but budgets have declined. Competition from for-profit universities, with curricula oriented to job opportunities, has been increasing.

People are beginning to note that administrative bloat, so common in government, seems especially egregious in colleges and universities. Somehow previous generations got by and even prospered without these legions of counselors, liaison officers and facilitators. Perhaps we can do so again...

As often happens, success leads to excess. America leads the world in higher education, yet there is much in our colleges and universities that is amiss and, more to the point, suddenly not sustainable. The people running America's colleges and universities have long thought they were exempt from the laws of supply and demand and unaffected by the business cycle. Turns out that's wrong.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Here's a story on the New Zealand earthquake and the fact that there were no fatalities reported. It points out that developed nations experience fewer fatalities than poorer nations because they have better build buildings which are less likely to collapse on people.

To make his point he tries to be cute and suggest that its money and man's ingenuity rather than God who saved the lives.

It’s an “absolute miracle” that no deaths have yet been reported from the earthquake that struck New Zealand early yesterday, says Bob Parker, mayor of the stricken city of Christchurch. You can see what he means – but Mammon may have had more to do with it than God. For it underlines how wealthy countries and communities suffer much less from a given natural disaster than poor ones.

I wonder who gave people the brains, ability, knowledge and understanding of the design of the universe to build better buildings? Maybe God? Wasn't it in fact the Christian understanding of reason and the design of the universe which resulted in the scientific and economic development of the West? (See Rodney Stark and "The Victory of Reason.'') The author suggests that God had nothing to do with the New Zealand situation and by implication the economic development of the West and the construction of better building. And what are the implications of his comments? If God does exist is He by implication somehow responsible for what's happened in less developed nations and not man?

What one sees here is the materialist mindset. God is irrelevant and absent from the operation of this world. It's all about man and his ingenuity.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Being in the political, public policy arena and dealing with some of the more controversial social issues of the day means I've been subject to my share of name calling. It goes with the turf. What I've observed is the name calling usually results from people name calling having weak positions and poor arguments. To deflect attention they revert to name calling. The range of epithets used by those on the left include: Racist, bigot, homophobe, nativist, and Islamophobe. No reasonable, self respecting person wants to be a bigot or a racist so the strategy is intimidate people into silence.

I've found this approach is often the tactic of choice by those on the left. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has an interesting column pointing this out.

If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot. It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke. Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.

Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Krauthammer portrays this as a cynical game: "Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. . . . What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument."

Thursday, September 2, 2010

An MPR poll out finds the governor's race between Dayton and Emmer is neck and neck. They're tied with 34% of the vote and Tom Horner is a distant third with 13%.

A previous Rasmussen Poll done nearly three weeks ago had Dayton up 45% to 36% over Emmer.

This poll suggests the election is anything but a done deal. A couple of observations. One is Republicans were probably right in thinking that Dayton was the best candidate for them to run against. Dayton's fringe position on taxes, to the left of Kelliher and Entenza, make him a big target especially when people are very nervous about the economy and their own jobs. They don't want to hear talk of taxes going up.

Second, Horner is really out of the running in terms of actually having a chance of being elected. The question is who will Horner be a spoiler for. This poll says at this point he's pulling more Democrats from Dayton than Republicans from Emmer. While it's hard to say what the end result will be, he's definitely positioned himself to the left in terms of taxes and social issues. He's calling for $2.2 million in new taxes and is pro-homosexual marriage and pro-abortion according to a past MPR story. That would suggest he'll continue to take more votes from Dayton.

If people view Emmer and Dayton as extreme opposites, which one will they vote for. Given our state of affairs, I don't think people want a massive increase in government and taxes. That should help Emmer. As for looking at Horner, I don't see him having a shot at winning. He's a creature of the political establishment and does not generate an image or communicate as an outsider. Horner is a policy wonk and that comes through when he communicates.